Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 The Open Forum
 The Agora
 Prayer to Invoke Our Right Brain
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author  Topic Next Topic  

Bill Wiltrack
Apprentice

20 Posts

Posted - Jun 01 2007 :  7:27:57 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Prayer to Invoke Our Right Brain


2,000 B.C. --- 1,000 B.C. Gods spoke to man directly. Most Gods were earth bound and visited individuals during normal everyday activities. Often the Gods were given resting or residences in ziggurats or household shrines. Invocation and prayer were not used, not really invented as yet, nor were they necessary.
1,000 B.C. --- 0 A.D. The Gods retreat back into the heavens. Their voices heard only when invoked, usually in times of great stress within certain individuals.
0 A.D. --- 1,000 A.D. The Gods abandoned us completely leaving only their writings for us to interpret as to their meaning. Increasingly absurd and malicious invocations are used, in the end to no avail. The Gods have grown silent.
1,000 A.D. --- 2, 000 A.D. Even the writings of the religions become meaningless. Doubt, hate, anxiety and fear replace the once confident and compassionate followers of the modern day Gods.

This is my paraphrase if portions of Julian Jaynesís well documented book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Jaynes uses 1,000 year increments for convenience and it is understood within my loose paraphrase of his work that a broad brush is used, by me, for the sake of brevity.

One of the many insightful arguments that Jaynes skillfully articulates is that there is an increasingly large gap between modern manís left brain and our right brain. Not a spatial gap but an ethereally widening ocean between manís ability for his brain to communicate between the linear functions and the regional pattern recognition or understanding aspect of the brain. This is happening, if I understand Jaynes correctly, at a time when we are more aware of our entire selves; our consciousness is increasing. The separation between man and his relationship to his Gods is a reflection of the estrangement of mans two equal halves of his brain.

I wonít pretend to be able to correctly interpret the overall conclusion of the late Julian Jaynesís masterpiece, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. It seems to me that Jaynes points towards mankind coming to a full circle of sorts. We are Gods. We are our Gods. We have discovered the concept of Gods through the part of us that we consider to be godlike, which is symbolically represented by our right brain. This right brain functioning obtains material, again symbolically, from left brain linear functioning. Mankind, as we may choose to perceive, started out almost totally unaware of himself as an individual. Seemingly, through a combination of outer stress, evolving language and increasing civilization we appear to be moving into a place where we have the ability to be totally aware of ourselves.

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 05 2007 :  11:34:14 AM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
What is it about the bicameral mind idea that strikes you as credible? I'm not being sarcastic, Bill. I'd really like to read what you have to say about this.

David
Go to Top of Page

Bill Wiltrack
Apprentice

20 Posts

Posted - Jun 08 2007 :  5:07:16 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Colin Wilson has written two excellent short works that clearly characterize the developing hypothesis and increasingly accepted theory of right brain/left brain schools of thought. The relationship between the physical and symbolic two halves of manís brain and manís developing consciousness is beyond the scope of Jaynesís anomaly, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind but the scope of this material is clearly addressed in Wilsonís metaphorical works, The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness and Frankensteinís Castle, The Right Brain: Door to Wisdom. On a side note, each one of these works recognizes the importance of allegory and metaphor in the development of mansí conceptual consciousness.
Go to Top of Page

Da5id
Journeyman

52 Posts

Posted - Jun 28 2007 :  10:44:00 AM  Show Profile  Send Da5id a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Wiltrack

Colin Wilson has written two excellent short works that clearly characterize the developing hypothesis and increasingly accepted theory of right brain/left brain schools of thought. The relationship between the physical and symbolic two halves of manís brain and manís developing consciousness is beyond the scope of Jaynesís anomaly, The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind but the scope of this material is clearly addressed in Wilsonís metaphorical works, The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness and Frankensteinís Castle, The Right Brain: Door to Wisdom. On a side note, each one of these works recognizes the importance of allegory and metaphor in the development of manís conceptual consciousness.

Yeah, but what is it about Jaynes's Bicameral Mind theory that makes you think, "Hey! Maybe this guy's got something." I haven't read this guy's books, but I've heard him interviewed, and I was left puzzled. Why construct this elaborate theory? How can this strike him as an elegant explanation for...well, anything, really. The fact that no obvious evidence against it springs immediately to mind isn't enough. Isn't it more than just an imaginative idea? Isn't there something about it that makes it seem like more than just a flight of fancy?

Maybe I shouldn't be asking you. Maybe it just struck you as a very imaginative, interesting idea. I'm not sure the interview I heard (a long time ago) is enough to motivate me to pursue this further, but I thought I'd take a moment to see if you could give me a reason to make the effort.

Dave
Go to Top of Page

Bill Wiltrack
Apprentice

20 Posts

Posted - Jul 02 2007 :  6:10:41 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Jaynes taught psychology at Princton, attended Harvard, degreed at Yale and McGill University. Jaynesís impressive scholarly resume does not make Julian correct in his theory of bicameral mind. His education does allow him to be an excellent writer. Jaynes seems to be able to use logical theory and artistic interpretation, along with a super human grasp and breathe of facts to produce a brilliant, innovative theory on the nature of mind.

Philosophy is based upon language. Jaynes argues that consciousness is based upon language. I think he correctly expresses that introspection, stress and metaphors advance language and consciousness. Philosophy, introspection and language is everythingÖ Perhaps Julian Jaynesís intended follow-up to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind; The Consequences of Consciousness would have brought into focus some of Jaynesís most interesting of epiphanies.
Go to Top of Page

William Goetz
Apprentice

32 Posts

Posted - Feb 26 2015 :  12:08:12 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Behavior is somewhat determined to be a product of brain lateralization, i.e. hemisphere dominance. I'm pretty spatially away however, I notice many philosophy teachers are off balance. This demonstrates logical data (left organized and analytical) and the expressions of special awareness are products of the right brain.

Researching motor innovation proves 95% of people are left brain dominant and we can show this by the population of right handedness. However many people still use much of both hemispheres. most people who are left handed and creative artists make up most of the rest of that 5%, however only about 20% of those people are right brain dominant. People who wright right handed can also be right brain dominant... AND people do us more than 10% of their brain at all times...there are too many tones of manic artists who express myth which is mistaken for fact; can be creative and persuasive, good combo, however you must check there work because their brain structures were not built to do math.

In all the theories of mind are justified by science, and we can now use all these terms and theories to better positively educate out youths. So that's one good thing technology and education is good for; making more types of technology and education

The mind talks to itself all by itself. this is lateralization when input crosses the longitudinal fissure that separates right and left.

Edited by - William Goetz on Feb 26 2015 12:14:37 AM
Go to Top of Page
   Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado © 2004 tkt Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000